1999 (12) TMI 188

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....av. 2. The facts of the case are that on 17-9-1989 one Ms. Pragna Patel arrived from Singapore at Bombay, on way to London. It was alleged that she had on her person 100 gold bars of 10 toals each. It is the case of the department that one of the appellants viz. Samant helped her in the sense that he opened the Reserve lounge at the airport. A show cause notice dated 26-10-1989 was given to the appellants charging the appellants for aid and abetting Ms. Pragna in smuggling the gold and the appellants were charged for violation under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act. One of the appellants Samant appellant in C. 43/91, whose statement was recorded in which he admitted that he had opened the Reserve lounge in the airport. On the basis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 1989. He also argued that there are many contradictions in the statement especially regarding Mr. Gurjar. He mentioned several instances of contradictions in Pragna Patel's statement. He specifically states that Pragna stated that at one place the contacted person had a beard and at the other place the contacted person was without a beard. However she identified Samant and Nitin Jadhav both as persons having beard. He further stated that Pragna Patel stated that she was told to enter the transit lounge as far as December, 1986. However, the conspiracy established regarding opening of the transit lounge was hatched much after i.e. in May 1989. The statement of Pragna Patel, Samant and Jadhav, the respective versions of entering and leaving ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 6. We are concerned, here about the violations under the Customs Act. We have gone through the findings recorded by both authorities below. We as of the view that the reasoning given by both authorities could be absolutely plausible and appears to be correct. The so called contradictions which he has stated it may hold good, if we are to view the things as a criminal court trying a case of criminal offence. We are sitting here as adjudicating and appellate authorities looking into the case from the preponderence of probabilities. We are satisfied that the incident must have occurred. As far as the evidence of the co- accused is concerned the Supreme Court in recent judgments one of which is Surjit Singh Chabbra has upheld the conv....